口内支抗及微型种植体支抗近中移动下颌磨牙效果比较.docVIP

口内支抗及微型种植体支抗近中移动下颌磨牙效果比较[摘要]目的:研究安氏I类错牙合患者中,分别采用微型种植体作支抗与口内前牙作支抗近移下颌磨牙进行比较,以评价两种方法的各自特点。方法:将24例成人患者随机分成两组,分别采用两种方法近移下颌磨牙。测量下颌第二磨牙在移动速度和近远中方向、垂直方向的位置变化,以衡量磨牙的位置改变,并通过下颌中切牙的位置变化,评价支抗强弱。结果:种植体作支抗组下颌第二磨牙平均近中移动8.5mm,疗程10.4个月,平均移动速度0.82mm/月,磨牙长轴向近中倾斜2.5°,磨牙垂直向压低0.28mm,下颌中切牙位置无改变。对照组下颌第二磨牙平均近中移动7.8mm,疗程10.2个月,平均移动速度0.76mm/月,磨牙长轴向近中倾斜角度7.5°,磨牙垂直向压低0.06mm,下颌中切牙发生舌向倾斜9.5°。下颌中切牙切端向舌侧移动了3.0mm。结论:两种方法比较,种植体的支抗更强,未见前牙支抗丧失。二者磨牙的移动方式有所区别。 [关键词]磨牙近中移动;种植体支抗;口内支抗;安氏I类错牙合 [中图分类号]R783.5[文献标识码]A [文章编号]1008-6455(2010)02-0251-03 Comparison of mesializing mandibular molar by micro implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage GUO Jun,FA Yong-hong,CAI Xing-wei (Department of stomatology,General Hospital of the Second Artillery,Beijing 100088,China) Abstract:ObjectiveTo evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage during mandibular molars mesialization in Class I malocclusal patients. Methods24 patients were divided into two groups equally. Measuring position changes of mandibular molars from 2 aspects and implant anchorage loss by mandibular central incisor. ResultsIn implant anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.82 mm per month, mesial tipping 2.5°, mandibular central incisor do not move.In intraoral anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.76 mm per month, mesial tipping 7.5°, mandibular central incisor move bucally 3.0mm. ConclusionTwo methods successfully mesialized maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger than another. Then move mode of mandibular molar differenciate from each other. Key words:molar mesialization;implant anchorage;intraoral anchorage;angle I malocclusion 在临床工作中,经常会遇到下颌第一磨牙缺失,但是下颌第二、第三磨牙均为正常位置而且大小、形态发育良好的病例。这时候正畸医师就会考虑将下颌第二、第三磨牙整体前移,占据下颌第一磨牙缺失的位置[1]。问题的关键是下颌磨牙牙根较多,移动起来相对困难,支抗的选择非常重要。本研究将临床中常用的口内支抗与种植体支抗作一比较,探讨两者的支抗强弱以及各自的作用特点。 1材料和方法 1.1临床资料:患者24例(男10例,女14例),年龄20～32岁,平均24.8岁。其中9例双侧下颌第一磨牙缺失,15例单侧下颌第一磨牙缺失。将所有患者采用完全随